!'■ 







DDDDl7^tD^3l 





1 


^H 




h 


'^^H 


^H 


1 M 


#^H 


t " 






i '^ijm 





^^''-- 






•X V •*■'•, 









.\.^ 



K<' 



'%/ 






SPEECH 



OF 

V 



HOK JOHE A. ipCLERI^AND, 

OF ILLINOIS, 



ON THE 



STATE or THE UNION: 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 14, 1861. 



WASHINGTON: 
PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
■ ■ 18G1. 



SPEECH. 



Mr. McCLERNAND said: 

Mr. Chairman: When an impending danger 
can be no longer stayed or averted, is it not the 
part of wisdom and duty to meet, and, if possi- 
ble, overcome it? Such, I think, is a sound canon 
of statesmanship. Actingon this belief, I propose 
rather briefly to deal with the question of seces- 
sion now actually upon us. First, I deny the 
constitutional rigiit of any State to secede from the 
Union; second, I deprecate the exercise of any 
such assumed right as a measure of revolution, 
which, in the present case, must embroil the coun- 
try in a sanguinary and wasting civil war. Start- 
ing with these jiostulates, I proceed with the effort 
to make them good. 

Our fathers, just emerged from colonial thral- 
dom, and jealous of consolidated political power, 
when they come to frame the Articles of Confed- 
eration, adopted in 1778, run into the opposite ex- 
treme of dispersed and divided power. They 
formed an alliance, or at most a league, of sover- 
eign States, under what might be called a treaty 
between independent Governments. In the lan- 
guage of one of the articles, they entered into "a 
firm league of friendship with each other for the 
common defense;" no more. Hence the Gov- 
ernment, or Congress of thi' Confederation, was 
wholly destitute of any essential faculty of sov- 
ereignty. It had neither the right to prescribe a 
rule of action for its constituent body, nor the 
power to enforce one. It was without legislative, 
executive, or judicial authority. It could only 
ad vise, recommend, and en treat; and even the right 
to do that was closely circumscribed. 

Founded upon a league of sovereign and inde- 
pendent States, its exhibitions of authority were 



addressed to States whose interpretations of their 
Federal obligations might or might not bind them 
to compliance. It acted not upon individuals, 
nor had the right to do so ; but, without coherence, 
without unity of principle or of action, without 
the power to preserve itself or to conserve the 
interests of its authors, like the Amphyctionic 
Council, the Achaen League, the Helvetic, tha 
Germanic, and the Belgic Confederacies; like all 
mere national federations, it fell into pieces in 
consequence of its own weight, of its own inher- 
ent weakness and want of vitality. 

The evils of this system disclosed themselves 
I in two most striking forms: one in the domestic 
i relations of the States; the other in their relations 



, with foreign Governments. In regard to the 
1 former, we learn that the period elapsing between 
! the treaty of peace with the mother country and 
^ the organization of the present Government, was 

one marked by angry controversies and rivalries. 

The conflicting views of the several Slates in re- 
' gard to their commercial, agricultural, and man- 
i ufacturing interests often prompted them to un- 
! friendly measures, not unfrequently in the form 
! of legislative reprisals, having the effect not only 
i to cripple their internal trade, but their foreign 

commerce; and incessantly to threaten them with 
I the horrors of civil war. 

I Foreign nations were encouraged to take ad- 
! vantage of this state of things. They imposed 
i upon our foreign navigation and commerce just 
i such restrictions as they deemed most conducive 
I to their own interests. They excluded our ship- 

pingfrom the benefits of thcirown commerce, while 
I they daringly and lawlessly strove to monopolize 
1 the'benefits of ours. And, as a consequence of 



these and other kindred measures, our foreign 
navigation was ruined, our agriculture paralyzed, 
our mechanics impoverished, and the little money 
remaining in the country threatened with banish- 
ment from it. To boot of all this, the ordinary 
administration ofjustice was threatened with over- 
throw by the clamors and desperation of penniless 
debtors. Indeed, we are informed that such was 
the excess of wretchedness continually accumu- 
lating from the slow but progressive destruction 
of all the resources of industry and credit that 
the calamity overwhelming all classes was more 
hopeless than that occasioned by the ravages of 
the Revolution itself. 

To remedy these and other evils incident to the 
old system, the present Constitution was adopted. 
How remedy them? is the question now to be con- 
sidered. Was it by restoring the old league of 
independent sovereignties; by repeating the com- 
plete failure realized by it? Such, strange to say, 
is the argument of the secessionists; indeed, of 
all those who insist that the relations of the sev- 
eral States as co-members of this Union, depend 
upon the pleasure, nay the caprice, of each; that 
each has an absolute right, at any moment, to 
withdraw from it; that there is no paramount 
authority anywhere to prevent it. This doctrine, 
although countenanced, as I have already said, 
by the theory of the old confederation, is, never- 
theless, contradicted by many of the leading 
characteristics of the revolutionary epoch. 

Appealing to history, we find that the idea of 
the nationality of the American people is as old 
as the Revolution itself. The authority of the 
first Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, on the 
4th ofSeptember, 1774, was proclaimed in the name I 
of the people of the colonies, and not in the name i 
of the colonial governments. So, the Declaration i 
of Independence was adopted in the name and by I 
the authority " of thepeople of theUnited States," 
and not in the name and by the authority of sep- 
arate sovereignties. It was a national act, and 
not the act of several parties; it was an act only 
competent to be performed by the whole people, 
because it involved a change of government as to 
all. So, the revolutionary war was a national 
measure prosecuted for seven years by the com- 
bined forces of all the colonies for the benefit of 
all. So, the treaty of peace, in 1783, was made, 
on the one part, by the United States as one na- 
tion, and by it Great Britain, on the other part, 
recognized our independence as one nation — the 
United States— and not as separate States. Such, 



I too, is the testimony of the Supreme Court of the 
United Slates — often repeated arguendo in the 
course of its adjudications. In Penhallow vs. 
Doane, (1. Pet. Con. Rep. 21.,) Justice Patter- 
son, delivering the opinion of that court, said: 

"The danger being imminent and common, it became 
necessary for the people or colonies to coalesce and act in 
concert, in order to divert the gathering storm. They ac- 
cordingly grew into union and formed one great political 
body, of wliich Congress was the directing principle and 
soul." "The truti) is that the States, individually, were 
not known nor recognized as sovereign by foreign nations, 
nor are they now." 

InWarei's.Hylion, (7(/em,p.99,) Judge Chase, 
delivering the opinion of the same court, said: 

" It appears to me that the powers of Congress during 
that whole period were derived from the people they rep- 
resented, expressly given through the medium of their State 
conventions or State Legislatures ; or that, after they were 
exercised, they were implicitly ratified by the acquiescence 
and obedience of the people." 

Again: in Chisholm's Executors vs. the Slate 
of Georgia, {Idem, p. 635,) Chief Justice Jay, de- 
livering the opinion of the same court, said: 

" The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, found the people already united for general purposes, 
and, at the same time, provided for their more domestic 
concerns by State conventions, and other temporary ar- 
rangements. From the Crown of Great Britain, the sov- 
ereignty of their country passed to the people of it ; and 
thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerging from 
the principles of the Revolution, combined by local con- 
venience and considerations. The people, nevertheless, 
continued to consider themselves, in a national point of 
view as one people ; and they continued, without inter- 
ruption, to manage their national concerns accordingly." 

The same idea penetrated the convention that 
framed the Constitution, and ruling its counsels, 
stamped that instrument with its national impress. 
Both the proceedings of the convention, and the 
language of the Constitution, attest this fact. 
Early after the convention mot, Edmund Ran- 
dolph, of Virginia, offered for consideration apian 
of government, proposing to enlarge the powers 
of the Confederation; and, among other things, 
providing that the National Legislature should 
have power to " call forth the force of the Union 
against any member of the Union failing to fulfill 
its duties under the articles thereof." Another 
plan, however, contemplating a J^\dional, rather 
than a Federal Government, was finally adopted, 
and became the basis of the present Constitution. 
That plan is embodied in the following resolves; 
which were adopted by the convention: 

" 1. That a union of States, merely Federal, will not ac- 
complish the objects proposed by tlie Articles of Confed- 



eration, namely, common defense, security of liberty, and 
general welfare. 

"2. That no treaty or treaties amnns the whole or a part 
of the Slates, as individual sovereignties, would be suffi- 
cient. 

"3. Th&t A National Goeermnen<ouglitto be established, 
consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judi- 
ciary." 

In support of the same principles, under the 
name of the "Virginia plan," Mr. Randolph 
said: 

'• I am certain that a Kational Government must be 
established, and tins is tlie only moment when it can be 
done." 

Mr. Madison said: 

" It in impossible for the Articles of Confederation to be 
amended — they are too tottering to be invigorated — noth- 
ing but the present, (national system,) or something like it, 
can restore the peace and harmony of the country." 

Mr. Wilson said: 

" The people expect relief from their present embarrassed 
situation, and look up for it to this national convention ; 
and it follows that they expect a National Qovernment ; 
and, then-fore, the plan of Virginia has llie preference to 
the other." 

Mr. Hamilton said: 

" I. A good Govemiiieiit ought to be constant, and ought 
to contain an active principle. 2. Utility and necessity. 
;j. An habitual sense of obligation. 4. Force. 5. Influ- 
ence." 

Further, and if possible, still stronger evidence 
of the intention of the framers of the Constitu- 
tion, and of the true nature of that instrument, 
may be found in the following letter of the con- 
vention to the President of the Congress of the 
ConfL'd(!ration, dated September 17, 1787: 

'• Sir : We have now the honor to submit to the consid- 
eration of the United States in Congress assembled that 
Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable. 

"The friends of our country have long seen and desired 
thai the i)ower of making war, peace, and treaties ; that of 
levying money, and regulating commerce, and the corre- 
spondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully 
and effectually vested in the General Government of the 
Union ; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive 
trust to one body of men is evident ; hence results the ne- 
cessity of a diliercnt organization. 

" It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Govern- 
ment of these Stales, to secure all rights of independent sov- 
ereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest andsal'ety 
of all. Individuals, entering into society, must give up a 
share of libi.'rty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the 
sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circum- 
stance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times 
difficult to draw with precision the line between those 
rights which must be surrendered and those which may be 
res>;rved ; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was 
increased by a difference among the several States as to 
their situation, extent, habits, and particular Interests. 



" In all our deliberations on this subject, we keptsteadily 
in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest 
of every true American — the consolidation of our Union — 
in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, per- 
haps our national existence. This important considera- 
tion, seriously and deeply impressed onourmlnds, led each 
State in the convention to be less rigid on points of infe- 
rior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected ; 
and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the 
result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deterence and 
concession which the peculiarity of our political situation 
rendered indispensable. 

" That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every 
State is not, perhaps, to be expected ; but each will, doubt- 
less, consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, 
the consequences might have been particularly disagree- 
able or injurious to others. That it is liable to as few ex- 
ceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope 
and believe. That it may promote the lasting welfare of 
that country, so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and 
happiness, is our most ardent wish." 

I hardly need add that this letter was the unani- 
mous act of the convention; and after being signed 
by its president, George Washington, was com- 
municated to the Congi-ess of the Confederation 
by " unanimous order of the convention." And 
what is its import.' Certainly that the prime ob- 
ject of the convention was to consolidate "one 
Union" by disintegrating a portion of the sover- 
eignty of the States, and vesting the same " fully 
and effectually" in a common national Govern- 
ment; and that the infirmities of the Confedera- 
tion created the necessity for it. In the compre- 
hensive and perspicuous language of the conven- 
tion, " our prosperi/i/, /e/tci/i/, safety , perhaps our 
national existence" itself, depended upon it. 

I come now to inquire whether the language 
of the Constitution itself does not sustain this 
interpretation of its character. The Articles of 
Confederation declared themselves to be articles 
of "pei-pttual union," but were void of power to 
make good the declaration. The present Consti- 
tution, amending, extending and reorganizing the 
powers of the confederation, declares the same 
purpose. Its preamble is in these words: 

" We, the peo})lc of the United States, in order to form a 
7nore perfect (/mon, establish justice, insure domestic tran- 
quillity, provide for the common defense, promote the gen- 
eral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourse/res 
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution 
for the United States of America." 

Hence, the Constitution, in its very preamble, 
proclaims itself to be the act oHhe people—'' of the 
people of the United States," and not of the States, 
as such, either collectively or individually; and 
at the same time styles the same people as anation 
—the " United States of America;" while, viewed 



6 



as an amendment to the Articles of Confedera- 
tion, it provides for "a more perfect union," as 
a means of insuring the " perpetual union " con- 
temphited by those articles. 

In no just view could the States have formed 
such an instrument. As governments created by j 
the people, they had no moral or legal right to | 
destroy themselves, or to abdicate or alienate 
their powers. Their powers were held by them, 
in trust, for the benefit of the people; who alone 
were competent to redispose of them, who alone 
are competent to make and unmake governments. 
As the people formed the State governments, so 
they formed the United States Government. Each, 
alike, sprung from the creative womb of the peo- 
ple; and alike derives its sovereignty from them. 
As to the process by which the national Gov- 
ernment was formed, it is simple enough. It 
was by the people resuming a portion of the sov- 
ereignty of the States and re-embodying it in the 
form of that government. The extent of its sov- 
ereignty, and of the prohibitions imposed upon 
that of the States, measures the diminution of 
the sovereignty of the latter. In one aspect it is 
national; in another it is federal. It is national 
in the objects of its powers, and federal in the 
limitation of those objects; it is national in what 
is delegated to it, and federal in what is reserved 
to the States. Its jurisdiction is of our external 
and common internal relations; while that of the 
States is of their respective internal and domestic 
affairs. 

Not only was the Constitution the act of the 
people in its creation, but still more, it is the act 
of the people by virtue of their subsequent formal 
ratification of it, through their directly-appointed 
agents. It is true that the act of ratification was 
performed by the people dividedly, as distinct, local 
communities, and not collectively; nevertheless, it 
was performed by ihc people, and the ichole people. 
And so said Mr. Monroe, substantially, in a re- 
sponsible official form— Mr. Monroe, who had 
opposed the adoption of the Constitution, for the 
very reasons here urged. He said: 

" Ttie great otnce of the (Federal) Constitution, by incor- 
porating tlie people of the several States, to the extent of 
its powers, into one community, and enabling it to act di- 
rectly on the people, (tlie only parties to it,) was to annul 
the powers of the State governments to that extent. The 
Government of the United States relics on its own means, 
for the execution of (all) its powers, as the State govern- 
ments do for the execution of theirs ; both governments 
liaving a common original sovereign, the people : the State 
governments, the people of each State ; the national Gov- 
ernment, the people of every State ; each being amenable 



to the power that created it. It is by executing its func- 
tions as a Government, thus originating and thus acting, 
that the Constitution of the United Slates holds the States 
together, and performs the office of a league. It is owing 
to the nature of its powers, that it performs that office 
better than the confederation, or any league which ever 
existed, being a compact which the State governments did 
r.ot form, to which they are not parties, and which exe- 
cutes its own powers independently of them." 

Moreover, the Constitution, in the first clause 
of the fourth article, draws an express distinction 
between the " United States" mentioned therein 
and the " confederation." That clause is in these 
words: 

" All debts contracted and engagements entered into be- 
fore the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid 
against the United States under this Constitution as under 
the confederation." 

If the Constitution was only a league or com- 
pact, soluble at the discretion of any of the par- 
ties to it, why this distinction.' If it was only a 
renewal of those articles, why its adoption at all.' 
There was no reason for adopting it if it had not 
been believed to be an improvement upon the sys- 
tem which it was designed to substitute. 

But, independent of this, the Constitution, in 
the character of other of its provisions, proves 
not only its popular origin, but its paramount au- 
thority and indissoluble nature. It organizes a 
legislative, judiciary, and an executive depart- 
ment, and confides to each its appropriate sover- 
eign functions. To the Legislature the enactment 
of laws; to the judiciary the exposition of them; 
and to the Executive the execution of them. It 
declares that " Congress shall have power to lay 
and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;" 
to " borrow money," to " regulate commerce," 
to " coin money and regulate the value thereof," 
to " declare war, "to " raise andsupportarmies," 
to " provide and maintainaNavy, "and to " make 
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and 
all other powers vested by the " Constitution in 
the Government of the United States," &c. 

Mark, I repeat, the nature of those powers: 
they are not only eminently sovereign, but are 
admitted to be so by the plain language of the 
Constitution. The pow£r " to lay and collect 
taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," is commen- 
surate with an absolute control over the substance 
of the people for the purposes defined in the Con- 
stitution. And the power " to declare war," and 
" to raise and support armies," and " to provide 
and maintain a Navy," involves an absolute con- 
trol of the sword; thus combining in the Govern- 



ment of the United States both the sinews and 
the weapon of war. 

On the other hand, the Constitution declares 
that: 

" No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or con 
federation, grant letters of marque and reprisal, coin money, 
emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a 
tender in payment of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex 
post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, 
or grant any title of nobility. 

" No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, 
lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except 
what maybe absolutely necessary for executing its inspec- 
tion laws ; and the net produce of all duties and injposts 
laid by any Stale on imports or exports, shall be for the use 
of Uie Treasury of the United States ; and all such laws 
shall be subject to the revision and control of the Con- 
gress. 

" No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay 
any duty of tonnage, keep uoopa or shiiw-of-war in time of 
peace, enter Into any agreement or compact with another 
State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in war, unless 
actually invaded, or In such imminent danger as will not 
admit of detay." 

In view of both of these provisions of the Con- 
stitution, one positive and the other nesjntive, how 
can it be said that the national Government, pro 
tanto, is not sovereign, and the Stales to the same 
extent subordinate? Any other conclusion seems 
to me to be equally irreconcilable wiih reason and 
the loiter of the Constitution. I say Iclier of the 
Conslitulion, because the 8cc<»nd clause of the 
sixth article of the Constitution declares that — 

"Tills ('(m.ititutlon, and the lawn of the Uiilu-d Slnii-s, 
which xhall be nuide in pursuance ihereol; and all treaUes 
made, or which shall be made, under the authority of tlie 
L'niteil States, shall be the supreme law of Uu- land ; and 
the judges in every Suite shall lie bound thereby, anything 
In the conslitulion or laws of any State to the contrary not- 
wltll^t«ndlng." 

And the Constitution, after thus proclaiming its 
own supremacy, makes that supremacy a test 
of official character, Ijy requiring every officer, 
whether of the Slate or national Government, to 
swear to that supremacy. Such is the efTect of 
the last clause of the article last quoted from, 
which is as follows: 

'•The Senators and Represcnlntlvcs before n)entloncd, 
and the members of the several State Legl«lalures, and all 
executive and judicial officers, both of the I iiitcti Slates 
and of Ui«! several Suues, shall he boiutd byoalh or atfirm- 
aUon, to support the ConsUtutiou." 

Again: if it were true tliat the States, as arti- 
ficial bodies, had formed the General Government 
by contributions from their sovereiirniy, if this 
were so, does it follow that they would have any 
more or butter right to dissolve the Government 



than the people themselves, if it had been formed 
by them.' Surely not; for, in the one case, the 
States, as artificial persons, would stand in the 
same relation to the common Government, as the 
people, as natural persons, would in the other; 
while in neither case would it be lawful for a con- 
stituent member of the Government to withdraw 
from its jurisdiction, except by virtue of a consti- 
tutional amendment. Any other mode of with- 
drawing from it would be simply extra-constitu- 
tional and revolutionary. 

The inconvenience, too, ofsuch a doctrine would 
instantly reject it. What! leave it to any party 
to a contract of Governnient — whether that party 
be a State or individual — to throw off the obliga- 
tions of the contract at pleasure? The idea is 
absurd. It would lead to a subversion of all order, 
government, and stability. It would inaugurate 
a reign of anarchy, confusion, and chaos, which 
would ingulf in utter ruin the dearest interests of 
society. It would enable any recusant member 
of the body-politic to shirk the obligations of a 
public debt, or the responsibilities of a war which 
had been induced by his own action — to shirk all 
lite consequences of his own counsels. It would 
be wicked and abominable in the last degree. It 
is not to be tolerated or countenanced for a mo- 
ment. 

And is not this argument, in itself, a complete 
dissipation of the misty and frivolous disquisi- 
tions that have Uikcn place upon a mere philolo- 
gical question — the distinction between a compact 
and a contract of Government ? No such question 
can have any jiraclical or useful application to 
ourGovernmentjunless, indeed, the Government, 
in its very nature, be perverted to the conditions 
of an arbitrary and illogical definition. 

To recapitulate, then, no State has any lawful 
or constitutional right to withdraw from the con- 
tract of national Vnion: first, because that contract 
was made by the people and not the States; and 
second, because, if made by the States, still, as 
artificial persons, they are bound by it, and have 
no independent, constitutional right to withdraw 
from or rescind it. And, again, because in such 
case, the contract of Union subordinates the States 
to a paramount sovereignty ordained by their own 
act and consent. And, again, because that sov- 
ereignty acts directly upon the people of the " Uni- 
ted States;" and by its own independent force 
must act upon them, despite of whatever the 
States, as such, may do. Being sovereign, its 
first duty is to preserve itself; and being sovereign. 



8 



where is there a power more than sovereign to 
control it, disintegrate it, or dissolve it? When 
the States show their right to do so, the paradox 
■will luive been established, that the minor is the 
greater proportion; that the inferior has the right 
to substitute himself for the superior; that infe- 
riority is sovereignty, and that sovereignly is 
subordination ? 

But, sir, admitting, for the sake of argument, 
the constitutional right of the Gulf States to se- 
cede from the Union; would it he just to the other 
States for them to do so? Again: would it be 
safe or expedient for the other States to acquiesce 
in such a measure? In answering these ques- 
tions it is necessary that I should take a survey of 
the past. 

All history teaches that coterminous, independ- 
ent nations arc more liable to quarrel and clash 
with each other than remote ones. Their very 
contact and neighborship, unregulated by a com- 
mon will, a common authority, in bringing out 
their mutual divergencies of opinion, feeling, and 
policy, necessarily make them so. The frequent 
wars occurring between the modern coterminous 
nations of Europe, and especially, between France 
and her immediate neighbors, abundantly estab- 
lish this fact. Influenced, in a great degree, by 
this consideration, our fathers were unwilling to 
continue their divided existence as isolated, in- 
dependent nationalities; and accordingly consol- 
idated the several States of which they were 
members into one common Union. 

The effect of the measure was not only to se- 
cure a common control over the people of all the 
States, as already mentioned, but to give to each 
State a domestic boundary; and to all of the States, 
as a nation, one common foreign boundary. That 
boundary, on the east, was a natural one — the 
Atlantic ocean. Hence the chances of strife and 
collision were diminished, even in a greater pro- 
portion than one to thirteen; and when, under this 
arrangement, collision should come, it would be 
between thirteen or more confederated States on 
one side, and a foreign and alien nation on the 
other. Besides, under the same arrangement, free 
and enduring access to that ocean became equally 
the right of the people of all the States. 

But what would be the effect if all the Atlantic 
Statesfrom Maine to Florida, inclusive, had taken 
it into their heads to secede from the Union, and 
in fact had done so? Would it not be to counter- 
vail all the reasoning, rights, and objects inducing 
the formation of the Union ? Would it not be to 



rcexpose the separated States to all the kazards 
of continually menaced war? Would it not be a 
usurpation of exclusive jurisdiction by the Atlan- 
tic States over the Atlantic seaboard ? Would it 
not be to deny the unalienable right of the other 
States to access to the Atlantic — to the use of its 
ports and harbors — except upon terms of conces- 
sion? What would Vermont say to that — Ver- 
mont claiming to be a revolutionary State ? Would 
she or any of the excluded States willingly sub- 
mit to it? I think not. 

Again: take an individual case — the case of 
Florida; who, as a Territory, was purchased 
from Spain in 1819, at a cost of $5,000,000 of the 
common treasure of all the States. And why, and 
for what purpose ? It was, as we are informed, 
for important national purposes. First, to get 
rid of a foreign neighbor; next, to round out our 
Union, and establish a natural boundary; next, 
to obtain the Florida point, as a means of con- 
trolling one of the outlets of the Mississippi and 
the Gulf of Mexico; and lastly, perhaps, to open 
an artificial communication, across the peninsula 
of Florida, between the Atlantic and the Gulf, as 
a means of avoiding the circuitous and dangerous 
navigation of the coasts of Florida. 

These were the purposes for which Florida was 
acquired; and since her acquisition she has cost 
us some thirty or forty million dollars more; ex- 
pended for the purpose of suppressing Indian 
hostilities, removing Indians from her borders, 
and fortifying her extended coasts. Now, shall 
Florida, with a population of one hundred thou- 
sand — less than one half of that of my district — 
shall she, having become a State by our paternal 
consent, withdraw from the Union, convert..her- 
self into a foreign nation, and setting up for her- 
self, thus defeat all the objects inducing her acqui- 
sition ? Who will say so ? 

As a foreign nation, in the vicissitudes to which 
weak States particularly are incident, would she 
be able to hold the fortifications erected by the 
United States at Key West and the Dry Tortugas, 
for the protection of one of the chief passages of 
the Gulf? Who believes it? In such an event, 
this Government standing aloof, would not these 
positions, sooner or later, fall into the hands of 
England, France, or Spain; and, in that event, 
would they not become to the Gulf and the great 
inland sea of the Mississippi what Gibraltar, in 
the hands of England, is to the Mediterranean? 
Nor would the danger of such a result be much 
diminished if a southern Confederacy, including 



9 



Florida, should succeed to the jurisdiction of those 
positions; for, as a non -maritime power, it would 
be unable to cope with the great maritime nations 
of Europe. While, if they should fall under the 
power of Spain or Great Britain— the lirstholding 
Cuba, and the latter the Islands of Jamaica anci 
Grand Cayman — either would be enabled abso- 
lutely to close the mouth of the Mississippi, by 
blocking up the narrow passage between Cuba 
and Yucatan on one side, and the same island and 
Florida on the other. Hence, in any event, the 
non-seceding and commercial States of the Union 
must need* retain those positions. 

Take still another example: that of Louisiana — 
the State of Louisiana. She is a part of what was 
once the French province of Louisiana; for which, 
in our infancy, we paid the sum of $15,000,000, 
when we were hardly able to pay anything; when 
we were small in population, overwhelmed with 
the revolutionary debt, bankrupt in credit, and 
continually menaced by the great wars between 
republicanism and monarchy upon the eastern 
continent. 

That sum then was more to us than >i^200,000,000 
are now; but relatively as large as it was, it fell 
far short of the value of that province — ^^a province 
extending from the Mississippi river indefinitely 
westward — embracing the area of an empire, 
traversed by noble rivers, abounding in rich min- 
erals, and lands of surpassing fertility, and which 
was transllrrcd to us more in order to avoid Eng- 
land's seizing it, than as an equivalent for the 
really insignificant price paid for it. The French 
Consul Bonaparte, speaking of it, said: 

"I know the price of what I abaiuloii, and have sulfi- 
ciently proved the importance that I attach to it, since my 
first diplomatic act witli Spain liad for its object its recovery. 
I renounce it with tlie greatest re<,'ret. If I sliould re!;ulate 
my terms according to tlie value of tliese vast regions to the 
United States, the indemnity would have no limits. Per- 
haps it will bo objected to me that the Americans may be 
found too powerful for Europe in two or three centuries ; 
but my foresight does not embrace sucli remote fears." 

Again : he exclaimed upon the conclusion of the 
ti-eaty of cession: 

"This accession ofterritory strengthens forever the power 
of the (Jnited States ; and I have just given to England a 
maritime rival, that will sooner or later humble licr pride." 

Mr. Livingston, too, our minister at the French 
Government, upon the signing of the treaty, 
addressing his colleague, Mr. Monroe, and the 
French minister, Barbe Marbois, broke forth in 
the following rapturous strain: 

" We have lived long, but this is the noblest work of our 



whole lives. From this day the United States take their 
place among the Powers of the first rank ; the English lose 
all exclusive influence in the affairs of America. The Uni- 
ted States will reestablish the maritime rights of the world, 
which are now usinped by a single nation. The instruments 
which we have just signed will cause no tears to be shed ; 
they prepare ages of happiness for innumerable generations 
of human creatures. The Mississippi and Missouri will 
see them succeed one another, and multiply, truly wortliy 
of the regard and careof Providence, in the bosom of equal- 
ity, under just laws, freed from the errors of superstition 
and the scourges of bad government." 

I Such was the estimate of the Louisiana prov- 
' ince by the greatest minds of that day. Such 
were the prophesies of Bonaparte and Livingston. 
And has not subsequent experience progressively, 
but rapidly, contributed towards their fulfillment? 
The destinies of that great province, as thus viv- 
idly and graphically portrayed by these eminent 
men, were not those of a "pent-up Utica" of a 
cotton confederacy, or a mere slave-State Union, 
but of an ocean-bound Republic, rising in the 
strength of the soaring eagle, flaunting the banner 
, of freedom, and boasting the proud title of the 
" United States of America." 

I This province, thus predestinated to unity with 
; this Republic, and concurrence in the fulfillment 

of its glorious mission, has since been carved into 
; a number of States and organized Territories — 
into the Statesof Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, 
and into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, 
besides the State of Louisiana, which is the pass- 
way of all the former to the Gulf of Mexico; not 
only of them, but of Tennessee, Kentucky, west- 
ern Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and thesixnorth- 
western Slates. The whole Mississippi valley has 
its only navigable outlet to the Gulf through Lou- 
isiana. Close that outlet, and all the people in- 
habiting the upper shores of the Mississippi and 
its affluents, amounting to eleven or twelve million , 
at once become isolated and excluded from the 
Gulf. In that event the agricultural and other 
products of the upper valley annually descending 
the Mississippi to the Gulf, for an outlet to our 
eastern Atlantic cities and abroad, to the amount 
of $150,000,000, would be forced into some other 
direction, or be entirely stifled by insuperable dis- 
couragements. 

What, in the course of time, would be the effect 
of this deprivation upon the people inhabiting that 
valley ' Would it not sap their enterprise, blunt 
' their spirit, enervate their character, and degrade 
; them to an inferior condition? Will the brave and 
j hardy men of that valley consent to so ignomin-- 

II ious a fate? Will tlie men who, in one genera- 



10 



tion, have conquered the savage and the wilder- 
ness; who have built up an empire often million 
people in the West— an empire distinguished for 
arts and sciences; for its great cities and thriving 
villages; for its green fields and golden harvests; 
for its floating palaces and hurtling locomotives, 
for its free schools, its universities, its numerous 
churches, and its electrical communication of 
thought from Cairo to St. Anthony; will such a 
people be content to become subordinate — a na- 
tion of herdsmen r Perish rather ! And such, in 
effect, is the answer of Mr. Clay to the same 
question , in his great speech in the Senate in 1850. 
He said: 

" If this Union slialibeconie separated, new Unions, new 
confederacies, will arise; and with respect to tliis — if there 
be any — I hope there is no one in the Senate — before whose 
imagination is flitting the idea of a great southern confed- 
eracy to take possession of the Balizeand the mouth of the 
Mississippi, I say in my place, never! never ! never ! will 
we who occupy the broad waters of the Mississippi audits 
upper tributaries consent that a.ny foreign flag sliall float at 
the Balize, or upon the turrets of tlie Crescent City — never I 

KEVER !" 

Without the outlet of the Mississippi, what 
would have been the inducement to purchase 
Louisiana; what the inducement to people it; 
what the inducement to make it the seat of a great 
empire : 

Let me not be misunderstood. I do not desire 
war. I would avoid it by all honorable means, 
particularly a civil war between any of the States 
of this Union. Such a war would be fratricidal, 
unnatural, and most bloody. It would be a war 
between States equally jealous of their honor, and 
men equally brave. I would forfeit iny own self- 
respect, if I could disparage the courage of my 
brethren , either of the North or the South ; for cour- 
age is the distinction of neither, but the virtue of 
both. The only difference between them is, that 
the man of the South fights from impetuosity, 
the man of the North from purpose, and the man 
of the West from a restless spirit of adventure. 
Myself a Kentuckian by birth, and an Illinoisan 
by nurture and education, I would deplore such 
a war as the greatest calamity that could befall 
the country; yet, as a practical man, and a rep- 
resentative of the people, I must not shut my eyes 
to the logic of cause and effect— to the popular 
instinct of self-preservation. 

Some sixty years ago, when the white people 
of the Mississippi valley scarcely numbered 
two hundred thousand, and when Kentucky and 
Frankland (now Tennessee) were almost the only 



American settlements west of the Alleghanies, the 
peopleof that valley seriously deliberated whether 
they should transfer their allegiance to the Span- 
ish crown, or forcibly seize New Orleans for the 
purpose of securing the outlet of the Mississipp 
fiver. And, at a later date, they boldly offered 
to Spain the alternatives of war or a concession of 
the jurisdiction of that river to the United States. 
But let history speak for itself on these points. 
Gayarre, in his history of Louisiana, says: 

"In 1786, the western portion of North Carolina, which 
was called the Washington district, had declared itself in- 
dependent, and had constituted itselt Into the State of 
Frankland, which organized its government, and elected 
Colonel John Sevier as its first Governor. But Congress 
interfered in favor of North Carol ina, the authority of which 
was maintained, and the new State of Frankland term- 
inated its brief career in 1787. This first attempt in tlie 
West to throw oft' openly the allegiance due to the parent 
State had aroused intense excitement for and against it; and 
the secessionists, still persevering in their former designs, 
were watching for the opportunity to renew them. Tims, 
on the 12th of September, 1788, ex-Governor John Sevier 
had written to Gardoqui, to inform him that the inhabitants 
of Frankland were unanimous in their vehement desire to 
form an alliance and treaty of commerce with Spain, and put 
theinselvcs under her jirotcction. Wherefore, he begged for 
ammunition, money, and whatever other assistance Miro 
[Governor of Louisiana] colild grant, to aid the execution 
of the contemplated separation from North Carolina ; pledg- 
ing the faith of the State of Frankland for the payment of 
whatever sums Spain might advance, and whatever ex- 
penses she might incur, in an enterprise which would se- 
cure to her such durable and Important results." 

The same author gives the following passage, 
in a letter written by General Wilkinson on the 
12lh of February, 1789, to Miro: 

"Thus, sir, if we review the policy [of annexation to 
Spain] favored by the inhabitants of Kentucky, we see that 
the most intelligent and wealthiest relish ourdesigns,which 
are opposed by only two men of rank, who, controlled by 
their fears of silly demagogues, and filling their followers 
with hopes from the expected action of the new Congress, 
have caused the suspension of the measures we had in 
view to unite the people, and thus to secure the success of 
our plans without involving the country in violent civil 
commotions." 

Again, the same author says: 

" Acting under the Influence of the same policy, and in 
order to prevent the afflux of Americans to New Orleans at 
a time which involved peculiar difliculties, the inlendant. 
Morales, issued an order suspending the right of dci)ositat 
that town, by a proclamation of the 16th of October, 180-2. 
This measure was extremely prejudicial to New Orleans, 
where it almost produced a famine, by stopping the supplies 
of flour and other western produce, necessary for the daily 
sustenance of its population. 

" Wlien this news reached the westernpeople, they were 
fired with indignation at an act which suspended their com- 
merce with New Orleans, and deprived them of an outlet 



11 



without which they could hardly exist. Numerous appeals, 
petitions, and even violent threats, were addressed to the 
General Government on the subject, and the protracted em- 
barrassments of the West were exposed to the whole peo- 
ple of the United Stales in so impressive a manner as to 
command their deep attention, and to force the Govern- 
ment into immediate and energetic action. Here is a spe- 
cimen of the language used on the occasion : ' The Mis- 
sissippi,' said the western people, ^ is ours by the law of 
nature ; it belongs to us by our numbers, and by the labor 
which we have bestowed on those spots which, before our 
arrival, were desert and barren. Our innumerable rivers 
swell it, and flow with it into the Gulf of Mexico. Its 
mouth is tlie only issue which nature has given to our 
waters, and we wish to use it for our vessels. No power 
in the world shall deprive us of this right. We do not pre- 
vent the {Spaniards and French from ascending theriverto 
our towns and villages. We wish in our turn to descend 
it, without any interruption, to its moutii, to ascend it 
again, and exercise our privilege of trading on it and nav- 
igating it at our pleasure. If our most entire liberty in this 
matter is disputed, nothing shall prevent our taking posses- 
sion of the Capital, and, when we are once master of ir, we 
shall know how to maintain ourselves there. If Congress 
refuses us effectual protection, if it forsakes us, we will 
adopt the measures which our safety requires, even if they 
endanger the peace of the Union and our connection with 
the other States. No protection, no allegiance.'" 

Mr. Mndison, as Secretary of State, writing to 
Mr. Livingston , (November 27 , 1802,) on the same 
subject — the suspension of the right of deposit, 
said: 

" From whatever source the measure may have pro- 
ceeded, the President exjiects th.it the Spanish Government 
will neither lose a moment in countermanding it, nor hesi- 
tate to repair every damage wliicli may result from it< You 
are aware of the sensibility of our western citizens to such 
an occurrence. This sensibility is justified by the interest 
they have at stake. The Mississippi to them is ererylhins;. 
It is the Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac, and all the nao- 
i^ahle rivers of the Atlantic Slates, formed into one stream. 
The produce exported through that channel, last year, 
amounted to $1,622,672 from the district of Kentucky and 
Mississippi only, and will probably be fifty per cent, more 
this year, from the vv'hole western country. Kentucky alone 
has exported, for the first half of this year, .*591,'132 in value, 
a great part of which is now. or will shortly be, afloat for 
New Orleans, and consequently exposed to the ettects of 
this extraordinary exercise of power. While you presume, 
therefore, in your representations to the Spanish Govern- 
ment, that the conduct of its officer is no less contrary to 
its intentions tjian it is to its good faith, you will take care 
to express the strongest confidence that llie breach of the 
treaty will be repaired in every way wliich justice and a 
regard for a friendly neighborhood may require." 

Mr. Madison, again writing to Mr. Livingston 
(May 1, 1803) upon the cession of Louisiana by 
Spain to the French Republic, said: 

" The cession of Louisiana to France becomes daily more 
and more a source of painful apprehension. Notwithstand- 
ing the treatyof March, 1801, and notwithstanding the gen- 
eral belief in France on tlie subject, and the accounts from 



St. Domingo, that part of the armament sent to that island 
was eventually destined for Louisiana, a hope was still 
drawn from your early conversations with M. Talleyrand, 
that the French Government did not mean to pursue the 
object. Since the receipt of your last communications, no 
hope remains but from theaocumulatingditficulties of going 
through with the undertaking, and from the conviction you 
may be able to impress, that it must have an instant and 
powerful effect in changing the relations between France 
and the United States. The change is obvious ; and the 
: more it can be developed in candid and friendly appeals to 
' the reflections of the French Government, the more it will 
urge it to revise and abandon the project. A mere neigh- 
borhood could not be friendly to the harmony wliieh both 
countries have so much an interest in cherishing ; but if a 
possession of the mouth of the Mississippi is to be added to 
the other causes of discord, the worst events are to be ap- 
prehended. You will consequently spare no efforts, that 
will consist with prudence and dignity, to lead the coun- 
cils of France to proper views of this subject, and to an 
abandonment of her present purpose." 

I Pursuing the same subject, Mr. Ross (Febru- 
ary 14, 1803) said: 

"To the free navigation of the Mississippi wo had an 
, undoubted right from nature, and from the position of our 
I western country. This right, and the right of deposit in 
the island of New Orleans, had been solemnly acknowl- 
1 edged and fixed by treaty in 179."). That treaty had been 
in iictual operation and execution for many years ; and 
; now, without any pretense of abuse or violation on our 
I part, the officers of the Spanish Government deny that 
, right, refuse the place of deposit, and add the most offen- 
. sive of all Insults, by forbidding us from landing, on any 
part of their territory, and shutting us out as a common 
1 nuisance. 

" Why not seize, then, what is so essential to us as a 
nation .' Why not expel the wrong-doers — wrong-doers by 
their own confession — to whom by seizure we are doing 
1 no injury .' Paper contracts, or treaties, have proved too 
feeble. Plant yourselves on the river, fortify the banks, 
invite those who have an interest at stake to delend it ; do 
justice to yourselves when your adversaries deny it ; and 
' leave the event to Him who cojilrols the fate of nations." 

Subsequently, Mr. Ross offered a series of res- 
! olutions for the consideration of the Senate, from 
' wliich I quote, as follows: 

"That the President be authorized to take immediate 
possession of such place or places in the same island (New 
I Orleans) or the adjacent territories, as he may deem fit and 
convenient for the purposes aforesaid ; and to adopt such 
other measures for obtaining that complete security as to 
him. in his wisdom, shall seem meet. 

" That he be authorized to call into actual service any 
number of the militia of the States of South Carolina, Geor- 
gia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, or the Mississippi Terri- 
tory, which he may think proper, not exceeding fifty thou- 
sand, and to employ them, together with the military and 
naval forces of the Union, for effecting the objects above 
mentioned." 

His colleague, Mr. Maclay, addressing the Sen- 
ate in support of these resolutions, said: 
"These observations are urged upon the supposition that 



12 



il is in the power of the Government to restrain the impet- 
uosity of tlie western people, and to prevent their doing 
justice to tliemselvos; which, by the by, I beg to be under- 
stood as not believing, but expressly the contrary. They 
know their own strensth ; they know the feebleness of the 
enemy; tliey know the infinite importance of the stake; 
and tliey feel, permit me to say, sir, with more than mere 
sensibility, the insults and injuries they have received ; and 
I believe will not submit, even for the approaching season, 
to their present ruinous and liumlliating situation. You 
had as well pretend to riasn up the mouth of the Missis- 
sippi, and say to its restless waves, ye shall cease here, and 
never mingle with the ocean, as to expect they will be pre- 
vented from descending it. Without the free use of the 
river, and the necessary advantages of deposit below our 
line, their fertile country is not worth possession ; their pro- 
duce must be wasted in the fields, or rot in their granaries. 
These are rights not only guaranteed to them by treaty, but 
also given to tliem by the God of nature, and they will en- 
force them, with or without the authority of tlie Govern- 
ment ; and let me ask whether it is more dignified for the 
Government to lead or follow in the path of honor .' One 
it must do, or give up that western country." 

Mr. Morris, Senator from New York, also ad- 
vocated the seizure of the island of New Orleans; 
and finally, upon the motion of Mr. Breckinridge, 
of Kentucky, Mr. Ross's resolutions were substi- 
tuted, and a bill passed more fully developing 
their suggestions, enacted to carry them into ef- 
fect. The substitute resolutions are as follows: 

" Resolved, That the President of the United States be, 
and lie is hereby, authorized, whenever he shall judge it 
expedient, to require of the executives of the several States 
to take etfcctual measures to arm and equip, according to 
law, and to hold in readiness to march, at a moment's warn- 
ing, eighty thousand effective militia, officers included. 

" That the President may, if he judges it expedient, au- 
thorize tlie executives of the several States to accept, as 
part of the detachment aforesaid, any corps of volunteers 
who shall continue in service for such time, not exceeding 
months, and perform such services as shall be pre- 
scribed by law. 

"That dollars be appropriated for paying and sub- 
sisting such part of the troops aforesaid, whose actual ser- 
vice may be wanted, and for defraying such other expenses, 
during the recess of Congress, as the President may deem 
necessary for the security of the territory of the United 
States. 

" That dollars be appropriated for erecting, at such 

place or places on the western waters as the President may 
judge most proper, one or more arsenals." 

On the 30th of April, 1803, the treaty with 
France ceding Louisiana to the United States was 
signed, and happily put an end to all further con- 
troversy in regard to the ownership of that prov- 
ince. 

In view of these historical fact^, can it be 
doubted what would be the course, nay, the ne- 
cessity, of the twelve or thirteen million people 
inhabiting the upper valley of the Mississippi if 



that river should be closed against them and their 
immense commerce.' If two hundred thousand 
people, with a comparatively insignificant com- 
merce, were ready to appeal to arms to secure the 
free navigation of that river in 1803, would sixty 
times the same number of people, with a corre- 
sponding commerce, do less now.' Only the man 
uninitiated in the springs of human action will 
say so. 

No, the Mississippi valley is a geographical 
unit. Its great river, with its intersecting tribu- 
taries reaching out in every direction to its utmost 
limits, is the hand of Almighty God, binding it 
together as onehomogeneous and complete whole. 
It is an organic body, inseparable except by vio- 
lence to the laws of nature and those other laws 
of commerce, education, and society, which are 
induced by the former. Let it be divided to-day, 
and ere long, when the frenzy of the hour shall 
have subsided, its dismembered parts will cleave 
I together again by irresistible attraction; will re- 
! unite as the mutilated lips of an incised wound 
I by the first intention. A higher law than the 
i slave law must control the destiny of the Missis- 
! sippi valley — the law of natural attraction and 
I cohesion. I say this in no offensive, but in a 
philosophical sense; and the reconstruction job- 
bers of the day, if they would make permanent 
work, must bear it in mind. 

Why, indeed, is not Missouri and the whole 
Southwest, including Texas, Tennessee, and Ken- 
tucky, closer in interest and natural affinity to 
Illinois and the whole Northwest, than the same 
States are to South Carolina, Geoi'gia, and Flor- 
ida.' Why, too, are not Virginia, Maryland, 
Delaware, and perhaps North Carolina, closer, in 
the affinities of agricultural products and economic 
policy, to Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, 
and the whole Northwest, than the same States 
are to South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ala- 
bama, and Mississippi.' These are questions to 
be answered by reason and facts, and not by mo- 
mentary passion and prejudice. 

But in a wider, loftier view than mere sectional 
interest and official duty, is there not something 
to draw us, by earnest, eager, and irresistible 
attraction, to a fearless, faithful, and enduring 
embrace of this glorious Union .' What, with its 
memories of the past, its blessings of the present, 
and its hopes of the future, is it not worth to us.' 
Behold its youthful energies grasping a continent 
as the young warrior grasps his shield and buck- 
ler ! Behold its lofty stature piercing the vaulted 



13 



skies in the dim and distant peaks of the Alle- 
ghany and Rocky Mountains! Behold its com- 
merce whiteningevery seal Behold its agriculture 
strewing the land and gorging the rivers and the 
lakeswith its infinite profusion! Behold its toihng, 
tireless workshops and manufactories, forging 
and fabricating all that utility, luxury, or taste, 
can crave! Behold its constellations of schools, i 
colleges, and universities, sparkling as diamonds | 
upon its bosom, and illuminating its extended 
sphere with grace, beauty, and intelligence! Be- 
hold its expanded arms offering an asylum to the 
oppressed of all nations ! Behold its glancing ban- 
ner in the van of human progress ! Behold its em- 
blematic eagle soaring with unblenchinggaze full 
in the sunlight of a higher, nobler, and purer civ- 
ilization than ever before kindled the aspirations 
of any other people ! Behold this great federative 
system — behold it, built upon the Divine idea of 
the universe itself — with its central sun and plan- 
etary orbs, each revolving within its separate 



I United States, as " the supreme law of the land?" 
' Is it coercion for us to maintain, peaceably if we 
I can, forcibly if we must, possession of the treas- 
ure and other property of the United States ? Is 
it coercion for us to stay the violent and lawless 
hand that would tear down the noble structure of 
our Government? Nay, more; is it coercion for 
us to let the flag of the Union stand upon the 
bosom of our country, where our fathers planted 
it; to let the eagle of America sweep with buoy- 
ant wing the wide domain of this great nation ? 
Is that coercion ? Why, sir, it is a perversion 
of all language, a mockery of all ideas, to say so. 
Rather is it coercion for a State to require of us 
I to submit to her spoliation of the forts, arsenals, 
dock-yards, custom-houses, post oiHces, and the 
arms and munitions of the United States. Such 
submission, sir, in my opinion, would be in the 
last degree reprehensible and disgraceful. Utter 
imbecility only can tolerate it; and if that be the 
condition of our Government, let us at once abol- 



sphere, and all revolving collectively, and as a j' ish it, and proclaim to the world the sad fact, that 
dependent whole, within the vast circle of its 
realm! Behold all this, and answer me whether 
tills wondrous political creation, the work of our 
fathers, and their loving legacy to us as their chil- 
dren, is not worth preserving? 

Patriotism, too, the sacred obligation of patriot- 



the last and most auspicious experiment of free 
government has signally failed. 

Can anything but madness countenance the 
scheme of secession ? Let it become a practical 
doctrine, and the most fatal consequences must 
follow. Not only will States secede from the 



ism, would prompt every loyal citizen, whether Union, but counties from States, and cities and 
in the North or in the South, to defend and main- towns tVom both; and thus the work of disintegra- 
tain the integrity of the Union and the authority ; tion and dissolution will go on until the whole 
of its common Government against the inroads of ,! frame of society and government will be ingulfed 
violence. Notonly the universal allegiance of all i in one bottomless and boundless chaos of ruin, 
citizens of the United States binds them to it; but j' Already it has induced civil war; indeed, in itself 
we, and all other public officers, especially are it is civil war. 
solemnly bound to it by our oaths. We cannot! Whatdowesee? Castle Pinckney, Fort Moul- 



avoid it if we would. 

We hear, however, the clamor of coercion — of 
coercion of States — a clamor got up, if not to make 
us all traitors, at least to frighten us out of our 
propriety. What is the foundation for thisclamor? 
Do the friends of the Union propose to invade 



trie, and the arsenal, and all other property of 
the United States, except Fort Sumter, in the 
harbor and city of Charleston, have been seized, 
and are now held by the revolutionary forces of 
South Carolina. And still later, we hear that a 
vessel sent by the United States, under the stars 



South Carolina for the purpose of subjugating her ! ' and stripes, with supplies to their garrison in Fort 
people? Do they propose to force her to send j Sumter, has been fired into by order of the Gov- 
her members of Congress back here, or to hold il ernorofthatState. More than that; she has placed 
any Federal office, or to perform any active Fed- ;' herself upon a complete war footing by organ- 
cralduty? Not so. All we propose is to protect !: izing and arming her militia, and votmg large 
the property and jurisdiction of the United States ; supplies of money to maintain her military estab- 
by defensive measures-no more. And is that |lishments. Georgia, too, has seized Forts Jack- 
coercion ? 'son, Pulaski, and Morgan; and Alabama the 
Again, sir: is it coercion of a Slate for us to do | United States arsenal atMobile, containing seven- 
what we are sworn to do-to support " the Con- j ty-eight thousand stand of arms, one thousand five 
siitution," and "the laws" and " treaties"of the || hundred boxes of powder, three hundred thou- 



14 



sand rounds of musket cartridges, and other mu- 
nitions of war; and thus the war commenced, 
goes on, thus mad men rush upon — 

" Lean famine, quartering steel, and climbin? lire." 
Oh, how ciianged the scene of yesterday!— 
warnings, and portents and evils ominous, are 
upon us. Behold! The genius of America, that 
fair divinity of peace, whose noble statue, vying 
the noblest work of Phidias, graces the Capitol 
grounds— alas ! behold, behold! she has fled 
affrighted from her empyreal throne; and Mars, 
the " mailed Mars, up to his ears in blood," has 
usurped her sway, and, in the hoarse dissonance 
of war, proclaims: 
"Put armor on thine ears, and on thine eyes ; 
Wliose proof, nor yells of niotliers, maids, norliabes, 
\or sight of priests in lioly vestments bleeding, 
Shall pierce a jot." 

But before passing from this topic, let me in- 
voke the solemn and eloquent warnings of the 
immortal Jackson upon the subject of disunion. 
He asks, in his farewell address to the American 
people: 

" What have you to gain by division and dissension .' 
Delude not yourselves with the belief that a breach once 
made, may be afterwards repaired. If the Union is once 
severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, 
and the controversies which are now debated and settled 
in the halls of legislation, will then be tried in fields of 
battle, and determined by the sword. Neither should you 
deceive yourselves with the hope that the first line of sep- 
aration would be the permanent one, and that nothing but 
harmony and concord would be found in the new associa- 
tions formed upon the dissolution of the Union. Local 
interests would still be found there, and unchastened am- 
bition. And if the recollection of common dangers, in 
which the people of these United States stood side by side 
against the common foe ; the memory of victories won by 
their united valor'; the prosperity and happiness they have 
enjoyed under the present Constitution ; the proud name 
Ihey bear as citizens of this great Republic ; — if all these 
recollections and proofs of common interest are not strong 
enough to biiul us together as one people, what tie will hold 
united the new divisions of empire when these bonds have 
been broken, and this Union dissevered .' The first line of 
separation would not last for a single generation ; nev 
fragments would be torn off; new leaders would spring up ; 
and this great and glorious Republic would soon be broken 
into a multitude of petty States, without commerce, with- 
out credit, jealous of one another, armed for mutual aggres- 
sions, loaded with taxes to pay armies and leaders, seeking 
aid against each other from foreign Powers, insulted and 
trampled upon by the nations of Europe, until, harassed 
with conflicts and humbled and debased in spirit, they 
would b(! ready to submit to the absolute dominion of any 
inUitar>- adventurer, and surrender their liberty for the sake 
of repose. It is impossible to look on the consequences 
that would inevitably follow the destruction of this Gov- 
ernment, and not fei-1 indign;\nt when we hear cold calcu- 



lations about the value of the Union, and have so con- 
stantly before us a line of conduct so well calculated to 
weaken its ties." 

But it is answered by the seceding States that 
they are aggrieved, and must needs have redress. 
And what are their alleged grievances.' First, 
the nullification of the fugitive slave law by the 
so-called liberty bills of the northern States, and 
otherwise; second, the exclusion of slave prop- 
erty from the Territories of the United States; 
third, the continued agitation of the slavery ques- 
tion; and fourth, the election of Mr. Lincoln. 
This is the gravamen of the indictment lately 
drawn up by South Carolina, and published to the 
world. In part it is true, and in part untrue. 

So far as Illinois is concerned, except in a few 
instances of rescue, there has been no serious 
obstruction offered to the execution of the fugi- 
tive act, either under color of law or otherwise; 
and in the cases of rescue referred to, the parties 
implicated were promptly and exemplarily pun- 
ished by the courts and juries in the State. On 
the contrary, Illinois has had upon her statute- 
books, for more than twenty-five years, police 
laws operating efficiently in aid of the fugitive 
act. Without pausing to dwell upon these laws, 
I refer all who are concerned, and particularly 
her assailants, to them. Nor is it true that a ma- 
jority of her delegation in Congress has at any 
time voted to exclude slave property from the 
Territories. As a Representative from Illinois, 
I have always voted against excluding it, and in 
favor of the doctrine of non-intervention by Con- 
gress upon the subject. This has been my course 
from the date of the Wilmot proviso to the pres- 
ent day. 

As to our territorial acquisitions, and the op- 
portunities afforded for slavery expansion, surely 
there is no just ground of complaint by the South. 
What are the facts.' All the Territories hitherto 
acquired have been slave Territories, and in large 
part eminently adapted to slave labor. So it was 
of Louisiana, now embracing the cotton and su- 
gar-growing slave States of Louisiana and Ark- 
ansas; so of Florida, now another slave State; 
and so of Texas, still another slave State; and 
withouthinderance slavery has spread all overthis 
extensive area, quite up to, and even beyond its 
climatic ability to sustain itself — as in northern 
Missouri and Texas, and in the Territory of New 
Mexico. On the other hand, as often as our 
territory has been clipped, it has been on the 
north and free side — as in the case of Maine and 



15 



Massachusetts, under the Ashburton treaty, and 
of Oregon, under the Washington treaty. | 

It is true, however, and I admit the fact, that j 
several of the northern States have passed laws 
obstructive of the execution of the fugitive act, j 
and violative of a solemn guarantee of the Con- j 
stitution of the United States. And protesting 
against it, as a northern man I appeal to the moral , 
sense, the good faith and love of country of the 
people of those States, to repeal tiiose laws, re- 1 
move this grievance, and right themselves in the | 
eyes of their countrymen. Will they not do it? ' 
I verily believe they will when their sober second 1 
thought has had time to act upon the subject. 
Already the people of Pennsylvania, New York, 
Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, have led off 
upon the subject; and no doubt the people of the 
other delinquent States will follow their exam- 
ph.. 

Admitting, however, as I do, that the slavery 
agitation was commenced in the North, still I can- 
not say that the South is blameless in regard to it. 
On the contrary, both sections have been driven 
into excesses upon the subject by incendiary dem- 
agogues. In the North there are the Garrisons 
and Phillipses, who are but the counterparts of the 
Rhetts and Yanceys of the South. The one, re- 
garding the Constitution as a shield for slavery, 
denounces it as " a covenant with death and an 
agreement with hell;" while the other, regarding 
the Union as the enemy of slavery, denounces it 
as the coil of the anaconda crushing out the life- 
blood of the South. These characters, on the one 
side,as crusaders against slavery, assume to crush 
it out by authority of God; while on the other, 
as propagandists, they deem it their Heaven-ap- 
pointed mission to spread it everywhere. Such 
characters are but the incarnation of fanaticism. 
Transpose them geographically, one to the South 
and the other to the North, and each will em- 
brace the other's form of fanaticism — the Abo- 
litionist becoming a fire-cater, and the fire-eater 
an Abolitionist. 

It is^uch men who have led the way in formmg 
twa great sectional parties; one, the anti-slavery 
Republican party of the North; and the other, the 
pro-slavery disunion party of the South, which, 
respectively, have seized the control of their par- 
ticular sections, and are now grinding the Union 
into powder. 

"Tilt" one seem'd woman to the waist, and fair, 
But ended foul in many a scaly fold. 
Voluminous and vast." 



This was the parent; and the other: 

" Black it stood as niglu, 
Fierce as ten furies, terrible as hell. 
And shook a dreadful dan." 

This was the hideous offspring of the fraudful 
parent. 

And thus I am brought to the consideration of 
the last ground of complaint — the election of 
Abraham Lincoln." And who, let me inquire, is 
responsible for his election? Surely, not the reg- 
ular national Democracy, who were antagonized 
by the Republican party on the one side, and by 
the disunionists on the other. That party faith- 
fully and fearlessly resisted Mr. Lincoln 's election 
to the last. Occupying a middle ground, they 
counseled reason, moderation, and forbearance; 
but amid the storm of excitement that prevailed, 
their counsels were unheeded. Their brethren of 
the South seceded from the Democratic conven- 
tion, set up a new party test, bolted the regular 
Democratic nomination, and dividing its forces, 
by consequence beti-ayed its success. Therespons 
ibility, therefore, be upon others, not upon us. 

" Thou cans't not say, I did it ; never shake 
Thy gory locks at me." 

Such being the primary and secondary cause, 

I and such the disastrous result, we say now, to 

' the Republicans, abjure your fanatical and pro- 

1 1 scriptive dogmas ; and to the disunionists, or rather 

I to our conservative brethren of the South of all 

1 1 parties, we say — to them we say, stay disunion — 

stay that fatal movement, at least until the people 

of the North, in their sober second thought, have 

had time to come to the rescue. 

Let us all — let all conservative men of all par- 
ties and of all sections, from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific, from the Gulf of Mexico to the far lakes — 
rally in favor of the integrity of the Constitution 
and the Union. Let them merge the partisan in 
the patriot, and, coming up to the altar of their 
country, generously sacrifice every angry feeling 
and ambitious aim for the welfare and glory of 
that country. Let no man, whether he be Dem- 
ocrat, Republican, or American, refuse to yield 
something of his opinions and prepossessions 
in deference to others, and the higher claims of 
patriotism. All government, all authority, all 
human life, is a coiupromise. Christianity itself 
is a compromise between justice and mercy — be- 
tween disobedience and its predoomed punish- 
ment. Let us, therefore, in a spirit of conciliation 
and concession, compromise our existing differ- 
ences upon just and equitable terms; let us all do 
this for the ^ood of all. Our fathers set us such an 



16 



example in the formation of tlie Federal Consti- 
tution; and why cannot we follow it as the con- 
dition of preserving and perpetuating that sacred 
instrument? To do so would be no discredit or 
disparagement to any one, but an honor to all. 
The people, posterity, and future history, in the 
name of freedom and humanity, call for it. 

Personally, I would prefer compromise upon 
the basis of non-intervention by Congress with 
slavery in the Slates, in the Territories, and in 
the District of Columbia. My own choice would 
be, to leave the people of the States and Territo- 
ries each to decide for themselves whether they 
would or would not have slavery, and what 



should be the character of their other local insti- 
tutions. This would be my choice; butif such a. 
settlement is unacceptable to the majority, then I 
am willing to forego my strong objections to a geo- 
graphical line, and adopt the plan of adjustment 
recommended by a committee of the members 
from the border States, which is familiar to the 
members of the House, and which, as the peace- 
offering of conservative men, would no doubt 
meet the approbation of the great mass of the 
people; a plan which I understand my distin- 
guished friend from Arkansas [Mr. Rust] is pre- 
pared to bring before the House on the first op- 
portunity. 



54 W 














IT •» AT «i» • 







.0^ 


•^^ 




^;L 


• o 




V _ ^^ 


^^ 


^^.^* 


•*^ 


H 


^u^» 


. ^^^jT. 


T!-t< 


% 


•X^' 






- 


?S^^■■\^'^.•' 


-^^^ 


0^ 



4 Oj 







o. *,r^o» .o' 



